Hilary Clinton: We Cant legalize Drugs because there's too much money in it

CptStern

CptStern

suckmonkey
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
62
Last week, while visiting Mexico, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was interviewed by Denise Maerker of Televisa, who asked her opinion of proposals to address black-market violence by repealing drug prohibition. Clinton's response illustrates not only the intellectual bankruptcy of the prohibitionist position but the economic ignorance of a woman who would be president

"I don't think that will work. I mean, I hear the same debate. I hear it in my country. It is not likely to work. There is just too much money in it, and I don't think that—you can legalize small amounts for possession, but those who are making so much money selling, they have to be stopped."
Click to expand...

sounds like she's saying there's too much money at stake; DEA employees, prisons and the whole infrastructure built for the war on drugs that it would probably too costly to dismantle it now

http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/07/hillary-clinton-we-cant-legali
 
Unfortunately this appears to be the reality of the situation. There is a multi billion dollar international industry centered around the US drug war (the DEA, local police, prison-industrial complex, and all the trickle down from those) and even they lobby. Drug legalization advocates have ONE lobbyist and he isn't paid enough.
 
Do we have a road-side [THC level] test kit yet? Or do they still need a blood sample or something? I always thought that was one reason they don't want to legalize it - for if they can't test intoxication levels during a routine traffic stop, then it becomes complicated to allow people to smoke it.
 
but surely those resources could retooled to manage a legal drug trade similiar to how liquor is controlled in canada. the revenue generated could make dismantling the drug war racket less of a money pit. and frankly if I were american I wouldnt give two shits if company's profiting from the war on drugs took a huge hit. they're just a hair above the drug dealers who peddle in human misery
 
Oh trust me I'd love to see that whole evil behemoth come crumbling down.

My point was just that my vote or voice isn't very important next to an industry that can spend hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars on ensuring that it continues to exist.
 
ya I agree with you. I think it's shitty; it's no different than the healthcare crisis in america: industries that reap huge financial rewards do so at the expense of the well being of american citizens. and for the most part americans are uncaring or worse complacent that their personal freedoms take a backseat to profit
 
CptStern said:
ya I agree with you. I think it's shitty; it's no different than the healthcare crisis in america: industries that reap huge financial rewards do so at the expense of the well being of american citizens. and for the most part americans are uncaring or worse complacent that their personal freedoms take a backseat to profit
Click to expand...

Damn right, FREE MARKET MOTHERF*CKA
 
I ended up in a healthcare debate in the HL2.chat recently and I was amazed at the opinions expressed by someone who I thought to be otherwise pretty intelligent on the matter.
 
VirusType2 said:
Do we have a road-side [THC level] test kit yet? Or do they still need a blood sample or something? I always thought that was one reason they don't want to legalize it - for if they can't test intoxication levels during a routine traffic stop, then it becomes complicated to allow people to smoke it.
Click to expand...

Finding if you are stoned while driving isn't all that different from the way they do sobriety tests now. They do some basic tests road side (look at pupils for example) then if they suspect you are high take you down to a station and blood test you.
 
Obligatory comment about how driving high is less dangerous than driving while talking on the phone
 
ríomhaire said:
I ended up in a healthcare debate in the HL2.chat recently and I was amazed at the opinions expressed by someone who I thought to be otherwise pretty intelligent on the matter.
Click to expand...
The American media and political rhetoric has skewed the issue almost unrecognizably in the minds of many Americans. Republicans have been insisting that universal national healthcare is a bad thing for so long that people's brains have just shut off. I personally think it's ludicrous that anybody could consider the healthcare bill a bad thing unless they are very wealthy.
 
In all honesty, full legalization would probably mean Phillip Morris and the tabacco/agriculture companies and other multi-national conglomerates being the primary distributors of Marijuana products and a lot of job loss in an already shit economy (DEA, medical distributors, prison workers, various law enforcement and bureaucratic positions). Full legalization not something I'd like to see instantaneously, it's not that simple by any means. We have to start with decriminalization and move from there, it's not just LEGALIZElOlOLol.

So yeah, like Ennui said, there's at least some merit to her concerns - alas, we live in an ass backwards society.
 
^ huh?

What jobs would be lost? The jobs of drug dealers? How is that in anyway a bad thing.

And the problem Phillip Morris would have is that weed can be grown by just about anyone that is willing to invest a couple hundred bucks. It is not the same as tobacco.
 
Actually, what they should test for is not alcohol or any particular drug... but impairment. If you can't pass a field sobriety test you get ticketed regardless of if you are intoxicated or stoned or what. If you do pass the test then nothing happens, regardless of if you are under the influence.
 
That doesn't really work because many people have certain disabilities that affect their ability to pass sobriety tests. Not to mention sobriety tests are highly subjective.
 
Ennui said:
The American media and political rhetoric has skewed the issue almost unrecognizably in the minds of many Americans. Republicans have been insisting that universal national healthcare is a bad thing for so long that people's brains have just shut off. I personally think it's ludicrous that anybody could consider the healthcare bill a bad thing unless they are very wealthy.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how many justifications they can invent that trick people into thinking healthcare = the end of America. They place so much blame on the poor for simply being poor, regardless if their debt is entirely comprised of medical bills. Hey, if they weren't lazy in the first place they'd never have gotten sick.

No Limit said:
That doesn't really work because many people have certain disabilities that affect their ability to pass sobriety tests. Not to mention sobriety tests are highly subjective.
Click to expand...

Even people who have had alcohol but are well below the legal limit will appear overly nervous since they know a single misstep is all that stands between them and the cuffs. Put that much fear into somebody then have them recite the alphabet backwards in a timely fashion...
 
The best way to recite the alphabet backwards is to simply say you can't do it.
 
I can't do that, honestly. I know the alphabet only because of the song they teach you in kindergarten, I can't do it backwards like I can count backwards.

True story: my friend got put in jail for a few hours for driving with 0.07 BAC. He's 21, legal to drink, and 0.08 is the legal limit here in NC (and I presume in most places?) but they threw him in jail anyway on the basis that during his sobriety test he "didn't seem sober". Despite multiple breathalyzer tests.
 
Did your friend pursue any litigation towards the police department for this? Unless there's some obscure statute it seems like he has a case. In any event, that sucks.
 
No, that would cost money.

It wasn't a huge deal. His brother bailed him out at like 4am, and the cops tried to breathalyze him just for picking him up but they told the popo to **** off and they had no choice but to do so.
 
How about we have a war on violent crime. Legalize drugs and put all the narcotics officers to work reducing violent crime.
 
Instead of a war on a thing, we should have one on a verb, that would be badass.
 
Tyguy said:
Did your friend pursue any litigation towards the police department for this? Unless there's some obscure statute it seems like he has a case. In any event, that sucks.
Click to expand...

In North Carolina, like in many other states, you can be arrested for being over the legal limit, OR if the arresting officer believes you're impaired enough, like if he witnesses you swerving, acting suspicious, or if you fail a field sobriety test.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top